Wiki Quick Commands

I have noticed in ages long ago, that there were things like (speedydelete) or other such commands that would inform admins to delete something quickly. Could you point me to a list that shows all catagories that might be useful to a non-admin, in helping admins out? Also, would such commands be the exact same in the "wikia" universe? Sraw531 (talk) 08:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Saidan Dathrohan needs work

The page regarding the Paladin Saidan Dathrohan needs some work, in regards to the Ashbringer Comic. I could not even read what was said regarding it, as it looks like it was writen by someone who does not understand english that well. however I do not own the Ashbringer Comic so I dare not to edit it as I have no idea on what to write to fix it up. If you or another moderator could fix it up, that would be great. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GovernorDerek(talk · contr).

Removed mobs & categories

I might've mistunderstood how things are with the removed mobs, but is a removed coyote less deserving of a spot in the category for coytotes than a removed orc is of a spot in the category for orcs? Or is it that no mob, npc or otherwise that is removed, should remain in their categories? If that is stated in the policy somewhere i might've missed it. I did wonder about whether this was the case some time ago, but I don't recall finding anything on this. PeterWind (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

NPC and mobs that are no longer in-game should have their in-game related categories (<zone> mobs/NPCs, <race>s, etc.) removed. I can't go through all of your contributions at once to check what categories there are left on the page. --g0urra[T҂C] 07:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Race categories are not strictly in-game related though. There are lore humans in the human category. Even if a character is removed from WoW, it does not necessarily cease to exist in the warcraft universe. On the pages for some animals or mob types I've seen removed mobs listed but marked as "Exctinct". I could do that when going over removed mobs. I took an extra look though, and I might just be looking in the wrong place, but I can't find anything about removed npcs no longer being in their respective race category. Even if I don't entirely agree, if putting race categories on removed mobs and npcs should be against the category policy, I will ofcourse refrain from adding those in the future (and for now aswell obviously). I would like to see this part of the policy section where this is stated however. PeterWind (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The {{Removedfromgame}} template states: "The in-game information in this article is kept purely for historical purposes and should probably not be under any other categories." Mobs and NPCs that does not have a proven existence after their in-game removal should not be in their race category. You can use |status=Extinct if you want, but should still not be in their race category. --g0urra[T҂C] 12:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, my bad then! While I can understand why categories specifically about WoW are removed such as "World of warcraft common items" or "Howling Fjord mobs" I still don't quite agree on the removal of race categories. Be that as it may, I won't be adding race categories to removed articles anymore. PeterWind (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I would say only notable characters that are no longer in-game should keep a few key categories, but no <zone> and such ones. SssssssssssssssssssssssssFor Pony!(Sssss/Slithered) 00:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't like that all too much as I think notable individuals, sounds like too subjective a term. I think I'll rather just stay clear of this whole area of categorizing removed articles, and just focus my attention on other areas altogether. Thanks, both of you, for clearing it up for me in any case. PeterWind (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Manuals

May I ask why was this [1] done? --Mordecay (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Unavailable items

Hey Gourra. I've been making pages for a good deal of poor items, some of which are unavailable in game, and I can see that you've deleted a couple of them. I mostly use the armory and wowhead as my sources. Sometimes there are inconsistencies between the two. Some unavailable items on the armory aren't on wowhead, and some either removed or perhaps even fake items appear on wowhead that aren't in the armory. So far, all items I've seen on the armory has been linkable ingame on live servers, while this hasn't always been the case for items from wowhead. The way I see it, if it's linkable on live servers, it should have a page, although I might have forgotten the "unavailable" tag on some of the pages. PeterWind (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

What's the point of having an article of every vendor trash item that has dropped in the game? There's literally no purpose except "hey this item once existed, even though nobody cares." --g0urra[T҂C] 07:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm similarly of the opinion that an article for an item that exists in the data but has never been obtainable is kind of useless. We're not Wowhead; we are not a database of every entry in the game files, nor should we aspire to be. -- DarkTZeratul (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

What the point is? Purely for historical purposes. The same might be said for the GM items, although arguably they have more history attached to them. Whereas only a small number of the poor items that were never added are likely to have such. If the items are found on Blizzard's own item database, that makes them "official" in my book, even if they are unavailable. I know mine, might not be a popular opinion, but at the same time, I don't think I'm going against any rulings we have on that subject. I also don't think personal interest or the lack thereof is what should the deciding factor in what gets recorded or what doesn't. PeterWind (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

What historical purposes? If it was never added to the game, it has no history. -- DarkTZeratul (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

To me, it has the same kind of value, that deleted scenes might have. It's a glimpse into what could have been. Which is why I also have an interest in items that were removed from ptrs and beta phases. In the same way that we have pages for scrapped concepts that never made it into the game. I'd still like to know if the only reasoning for deleting the pages was personal opinions or if there is some rule or guideline I might have missed. PeterWind (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

If the history of the "Artifact" quality is to be preserved, why were the old previews for the official website removed?--SWM2448 23:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Falstad's Return

Artifact Power

From what I can tell, there are around 175 items that grants Artifact Power. Should they have their own category, and can that be tied to the "|artifact=1" string? Or should we just list them all on the Artifact Power page? I added most earlier but my browser crashed. I figured I'd ask before trying to add them again. PeterWind (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

It could probably be tied to a category, yes. However a lot of the Artifact Power items may no longer be in the beta anymore - I know some that used to drop but I haven't seen since alpha. It should be verified first which ones does exist. --g0urra[T҂C] 06:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I'll refrain from adding the ones where the source can be hard to determine to the list, and just make the item pages for now. PeterWind (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good, but remember to add {{Stub/Legion}} at the top, even if you know the source. --g0urra[T҂C] 16:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Legion - Removed stats

I see you've added spirit and bonus armor to deprecated stats. As I recall multistrike is being removed from gear aswell. PeterWind (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Spells from glyphs

Many spells that were taught by glyphs have been removed now. However a great deal of those will, as it stands, be available from tomes at the class halls. The [Treant Form] as an example will be taught by [Tome of the Wilds: Treant Form]. So do we still mark these spells as removed, and then just add them back when Legion is released? PeterWind (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Replace the page's references to the glyph to the tome instead, and update it, such as "Now taught by <tome> instead of <glyph>". --g0urra[T҂C] 22:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Like so? Or should we keep the "Removed in patch 7.0.3? Since it'll be unavailable untill Legion is released? So far I haven't heard of a newer patch number on the beta, but who knows. PeterWind (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

No, that template is not needed since it's not actually removed, just has a different source. The beta build is still 7.0.3. --g0urra[T҂C] 22:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Template:Blizzforumlink

Since the website change yesterday, the URL used for blog entries is now "worldofwarcraft.com/en-us/news/" instead of "us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/". However, the template keeps converting the new URL to point to the original forums that were removed in 2010.

Ex) "http://worldofwarcraft.com/en-us/news/20195220/" returns "http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=10001&pageNo=1&sid=1", when I update the Hotfixes page.

Any way to fix this without potentially affecting old article pages that use it? -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 19:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Distinguish links

As long as I remember, the "for" or "distinguish" links went on the top of pages, before the infoboxes. Lately I noticed you adding them under the infoboxes. Has something changed? --Mordecay (talk) 09:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it looks better when the infobox is at the absolute top of the text, especially when there's an ambox at the top (compare this to this). What do you think? --g0urra[T҂C] 10:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, personally I prefer when the infobox borders the actual lore text (or a quote and the text) as in the second pic. They are kinda separated and it looks nicer and organized? Looking at wikipedia for example, it follows the same pattern too. --Mordecay (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, the second pic is what I've been going for lately (maybe you meant the first picture?). Wikipedia however seem to place the "For other uses..." and "'X' redirects here..." templates above the infobox (see here). --g0urra[T҂C] 11:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Just checked in beta, and it is in fact only one neutral quest, not two faction-specific quests. Same ID for both factions.

The Horde quest has the correct ID while the Alliance quest doesn't, and it was the first one created, so could you delete the faction disambiguation Quest:In the Blink of an Eye so that the Horde quest can be moved there? - Linneris (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Whoever created the Alliance version didn't check that the quest ID was correct. I checked the Horde ID, but it looks to be the quest you currently get in the beta that goes straight to the teleport - unless there's no actual quest chain before the real version. Another version has a short quest chain before it and seems to be the correct one. --g0urra[T҂C] 11:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I just played beta to check both quest IDs. Quest ID 44663 is given to pre-existing characters after the Broken Shore (for non-DHs) or demon hunter intro (depending on the class) by Khadgar's servant, with Khadgar's talking head intro. This is the one that we have flagged as the Horde quest, but it's actually neutral and the same for both factions. [The other one (quest id 44184) is given to beta characters created using the Legion starter template; such characters appear already in Dalaran over Karazhan with this quest in their quest log. The preceding quests as marked on wowhead (the Ulduar and Karazhan chain) are an artifact from earlier in the beta when these quests were part of the Legion intro, instead of part of the pre-expansion event. I presume this other quest is beta-only, but in either case both quests are neutral, there is no faction-specific with this name quest. - Linneris (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

We'll have to check when Legion goes live. It wouldn't make sense to me to skip the whole thing with Ulduar and Karazhan. I suspect the current way was just to get people quickly to Broken Isles to test the content there. --g0urra[T҂C] 11:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, that is when we'll know for certain. Could you at least delete the Alliance quest and the faction disambiguation page, so that the current "Horde" quest page that is actually neutral can be moved to its proper title? - Linneris (talk) 11:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Gourra. During the last few months, I've been slowly chipping at the old stragegy games, starting with Warcraft I and now Warcraft II. I'm going through every pages, updating stuff and wikifying things when I can. This is why I spent a lot of hours making sure the Warcraft 2 manual is true to its original document, and wikified it the end result. After that we had a disagreement about it a few months ago, and you've locked the page from being edited since. But I'm still working on Warcraft 2 and I've been noticing more and more things that needs to be updated in the manual, like how it's missing two drawings, some links needs to be corrected... So could you consider unlocking the page, please? It's not like I want to vandalize it, and I'm open to work with other people. Xporc (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello again! Now that the Legion rush is behind us, could you please rethink what I spoke about earlier? Xporc (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

You're free to fix the links and insert art where it's missing, but you are not allowed under any circumstance to change the formatting. If you do it again I will revert your changes and lock the page again. --g0urra[T҂C] 09:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. Thanks and sorry for making you upset last time. Xporc (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

There, I should be about done if you want to review it. Xporc (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Removed/Unobtainable

I know we don't agree on this subject, but could you not give me a quick heads up before just deleting 60 or so pages I made? I'd have liked to just salvage the info to a personal page instead. PeterWind (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Alright made a page here. Next time you find a page for one of the unobtainable items, I have added I would appreciate if you would just copy paste the contents to that page instead, before deleting the page. PeterWind (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Tell me, what is the purpose of creating articles of insignificant items that does not and have not existed in the game? We're not talking about GM items here but items of poor quality. --g0urra[T҂C] 09:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

First off, It's a personal interest for me. It would not have taken you a minute to give me a heads up, and I could have moved the data myself. We have pages for a lot of cut content, and as such I don't see why this is any different. Poor or legendary, cut items remain equally unavailable but linkable. To me it's the same as a deleted scene section on a dvd, interesting tidbit, but doesn't get in your way if you don't care for that, as the pages only appear in that one category. All the items I've added, can be found on the official armory aswell. As far as I can see, pages for items like that, doesn't go against any rulings either, only opinions. PeterWind (talk) 10:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The items you had added were not linked anywhere and - since they were not added at any point in the game - would never be linked anywhere. Cluttering the wiki with insignificant items that were never obtainable in the first place only takes up space. Your analogy with a deleted scene section on a DVD only makes sense if the scene were somthing of a mistake, like dropping the camera or whatever. It's garbage and nobody cares about it.

If you have a personal interest in linking items that were never added to the game in the first place but are still on the Armory, go ahead and link them on a personal page. --g0urra[T҂C] 09:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Alright. In the future, I'll add the sourceless items, not from PTRs or similar, only to my own page. I am still curious as to if it's only because of the items quality, that you are oposed to having pages for them. Half the items in the unavailable legendaries tab are in the same situation. Some removed from PTRs, but most, to my knowledge, datamined and added out of interest. You removed a linkable test "artifact" quality relic I had added aswell, I assume for the same reason as with the grey items. Do you feel any different about sourceless epics or is it only the legendaries that are "significant" enough to stay? PeterWind (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion legendaries that had existed at some point should stay, as well as any notable ones (such as [Crafty's Pole] - it's got some interesting history). As for items such as [[PLACEHOLDER TIER 3 ITEM]]... I'm still on the fence about them. --g0urra[T҂C] 13:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

It'll be a while untill i resume work on that project, but I could just move the questionable ones, to my own page if need be. PeterWind (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

There are still some pages for unobtainable items that I've made in the past in the category. I've started copying the content of those to my own page. How about I just add a speedydelete tag to the one's I've coppied so we can clear that category up. With your permission, I'd like to include my page in the unobtainable category. If other people have an interest, they can find my list from the category. This at least takes up a lot less space in the category. If you'd rather I didn't include my list in the category, I can abide by that aswell. PeterWind (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Alright I think I got the all. I left the legendary placeholder for now, but I can always move it later if you like. Also while on the topic. Is there a limit to the amount of personal articles a user can/is allowed to have? I don't necessarily mind having the info on those items as just one page, but I'd prefer to have them on several personal subpages. It'll add up though, so I figured I'd ask before changing anything further. PeterWind (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Linking to a whole expansion pack instead of a conflict

Are you really sure it's the best thing to do? Even if War in the Broken Isles is not the best name considering the invasion is happening all over Azeroth, the page might be moved later and a redirect link would be established Xporc (talk) 09:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I was in the progress of editing the article and didn't see you had changed the link. --g0urra[T҂C] 09:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

My bad, sorry then. You can delete this section if you want Xporc (talk) 09:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

this article is kept purely for historical purposes

Can we talk about this policy? I don't understand its purpose. For example, we have many human characters never actually appearing in WoW, such as Anduin Lothar, and yet they are still tagged as humans. So why should it be different from WoW NPCs when they are removed? Them being removed doesn't mean that they never existed, just that they are not here anymore. Xporc (talk) 12:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Anduin Lothar have existed in sources other than WoW. The hyena hasn't. --g0urra[T҂C] 12:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

So should we consider removed WoW NPCs as never having existed? What about cases like Lieutenant Benedict? He was removed with Cataclysm, yet I think removing the "Kul Tiras" category from him would be a disservice to the wiki. A user not knowing about Benedict already but wanting to see all Kul Tiras-related pages would have no way to easily find his page. Xporc (talk) 12:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

First, let me respectfully say that I disagree with the fact that you just removed every single category to that NPC I linked. That would make it seem like you don't want to discuss and just use my arguments against me...

So now Benedict can't be found easily anymore. The only way to know about him is to read the rather long Kul Tiras page. What about Lieutenant Alverold? He's not even an NPC, merely a lore character that was mentioned in a removed quest. You can't say that he was removed in the Cataclysm since he was never added in the first place.

And those two guys are just examples, there are hundreds (thousands ?) of entries that were removed with the Cataclysm, not all of them are listed in a bigger page. Removing every single category to these pages would make them orphan and impossible to find anymore. An information being easily discoverable is extremely important in a wiki, and I see no advantages at intentionally making an entry harder to find. So, what are the advantages at doing that?

Honestly, I just don't get why, for example, an ogre appearing in Warcraft Adventures can be tagged as an ogre, and yet an ogre that was in WoW but removed with the Cataclysm can't. Xporc (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

First, I removed those categories because they shouldn't be there anymore in the first place. Second, your Warcraft Adventures argument is null and void since it's not related to WoW.

To what end should NPCs be on a bigger page? Should every NPC that has ever existed in Thousand Needles be on Thousand Needles NPCs, along with all quests and services they provided? What about mobs, should they be on the same page, or a "Thousand Needles mobs" page? We can't have a hyena that is no longer in-game in both the Thousand Needles mobs category and the hyenas category, making it easier to find through category intersection, since it's no longer in Thousand Needles. --g0urra[T҂C] 13:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The Warcraft Adventures argument was because I don't understand why an NPC from there and one from WoW should be treated differently.

Don't worry, I understand why the hyenas are removed from the Thousand Needles mobs category. They are not mobs from the Thousand Needles anymore so they shouldn't clutter the category with their presence. But they are still hyenas, so I don't understand why they need to be removed from the hyenas category too.

Same deal for Benedict, he's not in Durotar anymore, so he shouldn't be in the Durotar mobs category anymore. But he was still a human from Kul Tiras even though he's dead, so I don't understand how it helps anyone to remove Benedict from both of these categories.

It seems there is a misunderstanding, so once again I repeat. I don't want those NPCs and creatures to appear in categories they clearly don't belong to anymore. I just want them to keep appearing in relevant categories like their race, class and faction. Xporc (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with Xporc on this. While removed mobs should ofcourse not be in the mob per zone categories, I still haven't seen a great reason to remove them from their race categories. The way I see it at least, If I am gonna look through the category of a race appearing in the warcraft universe it's likely gonna be because I have an interest in either the naming schemes of that particular race, or simply for historical knowledge. If I want to learn about NPCs/mobs of a zone, I go to the NPC/mob category. If I was a hunter looking for a pet, I'd go to the category for the pet family that I was interested in. Most post-cata quests imply progress rather than retcon, not all, but most, and as such some mobs are just "dealt with" rather than having never existed. But my opinions aside, rules are rules. If this is something that others have an interest in aswell, we could discuss it in the village pump. PeterWind (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I bumped a topic about this on the village pump. Xporc (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Vandal

We like to give warnings before outright bans, please use the Wowpedia:Violations page to add anyone you see doing disruptive edits in the future since most admins will have that page marked in our watchlist. Thanks for point him out, a warning has been given. SssssssssssssssssssssssssFor Pony!(Sssss/Slithered) 18:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Tools

Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted.World of Warcraft content and materials are trademarks and copyrights of Blizzard or its licensors. All rights reserved. This site is a part of Curse, Inc. and is not affiliated with Blizzard.